The Bigger Fish: A Comparison of Meta-Learning QSAR Models on Low-Resourced Aquatic Toxicity Regression Tasks
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Toxicological information as needed for risk assessments of chemical compounds is often sparse. Unfortunately, gathering new toxicological information experimentally often involves animal testing. Simulated alternatives, e.g., quantitative structure–activity relationship (QSAR) models, are preferred to infer the toxicity of new compounds. Aquatic toxicity data collections consist of many related tasks─each predicting the toxicity of new compounds on a given species. Since many of these tasks are inherently low-resource, i.e., involve few associated compounds, this is challenging. Meta-learning is a subfield of artificial intelligence that can lead to more accurate models by enabling the utilization of information across tasks. In our work, we benchmark various state-of-the-art meta-learning techniques for building QSAR models, focusing on knowledge sharing between species. Specifically, we employ and compare transformational machine learning, model-agnostic meta-learning, fine-tuning, and multi-task models. Our experiments show that established knowledge-sharing techniques outperform single-task approaches. We recommend the use of multi-task random forest models for aquatic toxicity modeling, which matched or exceeded the performance of other approaches and robustly produced good results in the low-resource settings we studied. This model functions on a species level, predicting toxicity for multiple species across various phyla, with flexible exposure duration and on a large chemical applicability domain.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it